Wholly Owneds to get Jets!!

[Jme]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 11:54:44 AM ONTHESTREET wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/7/2003 1030 AM DakotaHC8 wrote:

I prefer to think that any supposed new regional jets placed here at the wholly owneds will have been paid for with the decades of safe + profitable operations we have provided, and will provide...

But I know that doesnt matter in an AirwaysPilotCentric Universe. I expected backlash from a few Airways pilots on here with a overactive sense of entitlement. But why so little outcry has emerged when the company instead pays to hire outside companies to fly hundreds of RJ's is puzzeling. But it probably has to do with the misguided notion that if Mesa buys + flies an RJ, that it somehow doesnt cost US Airways just as much (please).

Chances are that the majority of said aircraft in this motion are meant to be flown at MidAtlantic/Mainline Express. Thus they WILL be your planes, and WILL be flown by by your pilots, duh...

Just because your union negotiated a B-scale trying to save the pension, there is no reason to blame the wholly owneds. trust me, we have no control over anything going on here
----------------
[/blockquote]

Alright crowd, I was not bashing anyone, especially the W/O's (Used to be one) Just pointing out that the company is not being truthful with ANY group.

You are probably right, All the BK statement says is that the jets will be going to USAir regional affiliates. So using the companies track record, that probably means Freedom and Republic.

As to entitlement. Give me a break, When I hired on with the W/O I never expected to fly a jet. If we got them fine but it was not part of the deal! When I hired on with ML, I also never expected to be forced to give up my job so the W/O's could fly jets.

But just to get this straight, What you are saying is that it is alright for the company to screw the guys that have been here for 30+ years so you can trade in your Dash 8 for a jet?

Most of us were playing in the sandbox (or not even born yet) when these guys took their first checkride with this company, and you actually have the gonads to think that they have a false sense of entitlement in this issue?

But dont worry, I'm sure Dave has a nice pink slip for you guys too after he puts enough of the jets at freedom and Republic.

have a nice day.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Give me a break!! The RJs are a much needed infusion to Airways group! They are not just making a whimsical choice here.ONTHESTREET is exactly where we will be if the RJs are not in the picture. No matter how much we debate this it is am inevitable requirement in today's aviation industry!! I for one think DS is doing a great job of salvaging what was going the way of the Titanic.

JmE

 

[ONTHESTREET]

Hmmm. Sounds alot lot like management. You from CCY JME?

 

[DakotaHC8]

Oh, and another thng, all this whining about Express taking over "mainline" routes makes no sense to me. I have a basic rule, if US Airways is the only mainline operation at a given airport then it makes little sense to waste such resouces or compete against other carriers utilizing regional cost structures.

I mean c'mon, You are really trying to tell me that places like ERI, BGM, ITH, ELM, AVP, TOL and so on should all have remained mainline cities?

Im more of the opinion that mainline aircraft should fly where thay can make the company the most money. New routes (like the carribean or equipment upgrades (new airbuses on the shuttle routes) seems to be a better utilization of Airways aircraft rather than unlogical retention of regulation-era destinations. Most of the loss of previous mainline routes has more to do with the retirement of 7 types of aircraft previously flown by USAir. What made marginal sense in an DC-9 or F-100 might not be resonable in a A319, no?

And I also tend to think that Southwest had much more to do with the US Airways moving out of California and BWI than US Airways Express. But certain people might prefer to see Express as the scapegoat, rather than admit an inability to compete with another airline. Who knows...?

 

[DakotaHC8]

Dear ONTHESTREET,

>>>It states that one out of every six pilots hired MUST come from one of our wholly owned carriers. Not a huge number but much better than zero requirement. We were looking for a higher ratio but didnt get it. It was to be included in future agreements.[[<

Ahhhh no.

The reason this is anything but a paper tiger is twofold. First, the only reason this was done was to get around a written promise the wholly owned pilots recieved from the Airways pilot leadership. A promise that they would pursue the flow thru program we both agreed to during any future negotiations for scope relief. What ended up happening is that management just needed an limit increase to 70 RJ's, and the Airways pilots had other items on their shopping list that they considered more worthwhile than a flow agreement. three dozen RJ's wasn't worth enough to managment to agree to everything ALPA wanted so the flow was left out.

The one out of six newhire deal was a temporary band-aid meant to placate the wholly owned pilots so Airways ALPA could get tge contractual improvements it had negotiated while not living up to the promise they had made. The real trick is that US Airways was quite finished with any hiring so 1 in 6 meant/cost nothing,

Which brings up another point, that promise to negotiate for the flow thru agreement that the wholly owned and airways union leaders had drafted was completly ignored last year. Instead the Airways pilots (not managment)came up with the idea for MidAtlantic and jets for jobs to further their own interests with little regards for the other pilot groups at US Airways Group.

]]>Remember we gave up contractual items during LOA 79 and we thought you were important enough to include in it!!![[<

Really? I am curious what you gave up, I have to plead ignorance on this point as it was my understanding that you only allowed 3 dozen additional RJ's to be flown by outside contractors. I do remember a list of contractual improvements and grievence settlments in your favor though.

]>>You should do a little research before you bash the mainline guys too much.[Maybe next time we can get 50% or even a full flow thru.[

 

[propjok]

dont waste your time, they will never understand. they are finally going to get what they deserve. (it is sad that it has to come from the pension plan).

 

[ONTHESTREET]

You really do not get it do you? The "pilot leadership" that screwed the W/O's for years is all turning 60 in the very near future. The help that I described (petetions, Web site, etc.) all were the doing of the younger pilots at ML. You never had a chance with the old heads (They never flew commuters, as a new hire they were on CV-580's, and YS-11's, etc.)

Almost none of the ML pilots posting here are the old guys. You are continuing to berate and bash the only group of pilots that EVER took a stand for your group.

I said repeatedly in my previous posts that I had always supported your position.......I guess you are too stupid to see who the next generation of "Pilot Leadership" is. If this turd manages to survive, the guys out on furlough right now will be the senior guys in less than 10 years. 46% of ML is now over 50. You keep trying to piss on the only ones who ever tried to help you guys!!!!!

I have been in your seat. Long before you got there. That is why I always stuck up for, and supported the W/O's. If you and Propjok now represent the norm at the W/O's I and all of your other previous supporters wont bother next time.

 

[DakotaHC8]

Street,

You are right. There is no reason to blame the lower half of the airways senority list for the actions of your pilot leadership. I apologize.

But I still defend my position that all of this would have been far less painful if those same leaders had listened to us. Even today, they talk cooperation and coordination, but the reality is that they do whatever they want to get whatever they can. Will the future leaders of U ALPA have more foresight...? I hope for both of our sake that they do.

Once again, I apologize if you felt slighted by my defense. We have both suffered because of the mistakes your leadership has made in the past AND present, so I think that we can find a middle ground. Hopefully the chance to work alongside one another and share common goals will mend some of the differences in the future. I know that IF the wholly owneds are also pulled from bankruptcy and given the tools we need to compete, then our pilots will not be as fustrated and bitter.

Good day

 

[N628AU]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 6:01:09 PM DakotaHC8 wrote:

And I also tend to think that Southwest had much more to do with the US Airways moving out of California and BWI than US Airways Express. But certain people might prefer to see Express as the scapegoat, rather than admit an inability to compete with another airline. Who knows...?


----------------
[/blockquote]

Southwest had nothing to do with US pulling out of California. The PIT knows best mentality and unflexible work rules are what killed California. PSA was just fine until US came in and mucked everything up, which allowed Southwest to become what they are in California today. LAX Terminal 1 was all PSA back then. All those gates in LAX with WN aircraft would have has PSA aircraft on them if not for US management.

 

[propjok]

maybee you are a moderator and thats how you know that the guys that are posting here are all young.I on the other hand have no clue as to the age of the people on this board. you keep talking about a website i have no clue what you are talking about. oh if this "turd" does survive i am sure that by that time we will have rj and it wont be because of you or any other mainline pilot.

 

[Furloughedagain]

Propjok,

When the US Airways MEC was negotiating the language in LOA79 it was designed to be an "interim" RJ agreement -- essentially allowing the company to add another 35 RJs at the codeshares to buy them time to negotiate the large RJ deal.

In fact there was language within LOA79 which said that the company and the association would immediately enter into negotiations for a large RJ agreement to include up to 400 aircraft and a bidirectional flowthrough agreement with the wholly owned regionals.

That was a big deal not just for you, but for the 1049 (at the time) "newhires" at US Airways who did not enjoy contractual furlough protections. Over 80% of the US Airways pilots voted to ratify that agreement -- and it passed.

Later, the US Airways MEC decided that since the company refused to pay negotiating expenses (flight pay loss, a few hotel rooms etc..) that they would cease negotiations -- DESPITE WHAT THE US AIRWAYS PILOTS VOTED FOR!

A few very junior US Airways pilots, with the help and guidance of the Baltimore F/O representative, started a website that they called "A Unified Front". They attempted to organize the junior pilots and get them to attend meetings, and lobby their representatives to force ALPA to, once again, begin negotiations for the flowthrough.

I understand that at its height the website had over 600 members -- 10% of the pilot group. Not a bad accomplishment for a few guys who didnt like the way the MEC was doing business.

Along came the UAL merger and everyone's attention was diverted -- neither the company nor the union cared to negotiate for RJs.

And, as you know, shortly after the merger was terminated September 11th occured and over the course of 6 months nearly every person who participated in the website was furloughed.

You have to admit that trying to build a grass-roots campaign against a decades-old "good ol' boy" union was a daunting task. Maybe with more time they would have been more effective.

But "on the street" is correct -- you had a large contingent of mainline pilots fighting with you to keep those jets at the wholly-owneds with a flowthrough to protect their own jobs.

Dont believe everything you hear in the crewroom -- there are two sides to every story.

 

[fatherabraham]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/10/2003 6:09:24 AM Furloughedagain wrote:

You have to admit that trying to build a grass-roots campaign against a decades-old "good ol' boy" union was a daunting task. Maybe with more time they would have been more effective.

Dont believe everything you hear in the crewroom -- there are two sides to every story.

Furlough,
To add to your excellent post:
Junior FO 14.5 years
Junior CO 17 years

14.5 + 17% = 17

This good ole boy net work has kept those at U (pilots) with less than 17 years down for a long long time with various forms of B scale including the latest attempt with a reduced pension for pilots with less than 21 years. Note that at the end of this 7 year paycut the gap may narrow to a co being at Usair around 10% longer than junior fo. Assuming all remains constant.

This situation is not lost on the "junior" at Usair and may be reflected in upcoming negotiations as was the negotiations at AMR in late 80's by the " killer B's "


I have to wonder if most of this animosity from the regional pilot is from the senior co that missed the hiring by the majors and now is reveling in the thought that destiny is now in his/her favor? Still no reason to treat folks such as yourself in the manner I see hear on the boards. Best of luck to you and the 1800+, for you deserve better.

Maybe the ole " what comes around goes around " will happen soon concerning points in your post and mine.
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[propjok]

i did not miss anything when these negotiations were going on i was still an fo when sep 11th came along i had just upgraded to capt. if everything that you say is true (pardon me for beeing qa little skeptical) no one at the wo was made aware of any effort on the part of any mainline pilot to secure anything. all we know is that the rj are going to the partner airlines instead of the wo. and know as to throw salt on our wounds mainline comes up with yet another plan place the 70 seaters at the wo only but 100% of the seats will go to mainline. if you cant see why we might be just a little bit upset then this has all been a waste of time

 

[Furloughedagain]

Propjok said, "pardon me for beeing qa little skeptical"

Propjok,

Challenging ALPA to make job-security job #1 is NEVER a waste -- regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.

You have a right to be upset, but do not think for a minute that you have sole-claim to that right when there are more than 1800 furloughed US Airways pilots who, thanks to ALPA shortsightedness, are on the street rather than flying these RJs at the wholly-owneds.

I voted, along with 80% of the pilot group, for a flowthrough that would have provided me a job at the same time it provided US Airways with valuable RJ feed. ALPA elected to go against the wishes of its pilots.

The wholly-owned pilots do not have exclusive rights to being angry at US Airways ALPA leadership -- believe me, there are those of us who are every bit as dissapointed with the association as you are.

(and I've not even mentioned the guys who worked for 30 years only to have their pensions taken away March 31st and replaced with PBGC guarantee....)

 

[WSurf]

When you left your job and went to fly for US Airways you took a chance. And now that chance you took has left you on the street. Thats what life is all about! But how can you expect to have a golden chaute and fly an RJ on one of the wholly owns property. You should be treated like the WO's were by US Airways. How about we give you a chance with the interview process and earn your right to work there. If PDT, ALG, or PSA are forced to Furlough to allow ML guys to fly Jets, that to me is close to Scabish.
I have no problem with ML guys coming to work for us! I don't want anyone on the street (but to the bottom you go) But I do have a problem with you thinking that US Airways owes you something. Jets for Jobs is the biggest joke around, I don't know how Daune Worth can sleep with himself. It's time for the Regionals to stand up against this Stuff. Okay I feel better. Lets just hope we can all get through this..

 

[Furloughedagain]

Billy,

What I was talking about was a negotiated flowthrough as a part of LOA79 and, in 1999 and 2000 when these negotiations were taking place, the MEC's of the wholly-owneds were all on-board.

Nowhere in my posts did I make any mention of US Airways owing us anything, nor did I take a position pro or con on J4J.

I simply feel as though ALPA had the opportunity to provide job security for the junior pilots (AND let the wholly-owneds have all the RJs they could get) and they let us down.

...and that was all when the economy was booming.